03.5 6 Spd Sedan Owner with Feedback on 05 6 Spd Sedans
Originally Posted by scoobybri
I know, I know. There's NO way that the '05 could actually have any improvements over previous years...
So what your saying is there's no way to compare these 2 cars? I thought for all intensive purposes an AT gives a driver an advantage at the track because of consistancy. This was on the same track, same temp, same humidity, same elevation. So the question is...does $2500 worth of mods only offset the powertrain losses of the AT vs the 6MT? Because if this was true and the engines of the 04s and 05 are completely even, there is one hell of percentage of powertrain loss! Not to mention that my car weighs almost 100lbs. more.
So the argument that I see here is modded 04 AT versus stock 05 6MT = even because of transmission difference. A person with an '04 AT needs mods to run even with an 05 6MT...and this is strictly due to powertrain loss....hmmm. And this post was started because of a butt dyno review. Someone starts throwing around real world numbers and of course, they are instantly cast off as heresy. What year was your G again? If the '06 comes out and is faster than my '05, I'll be the first to admit it. But never on butt dyno...once I get back from the track.
I refer back to the original line in this post....
So what your saying is there's no way to compare these 2 cars? I thought for all intensive purposes an AT gives a driver an advantage at the track because of consistancy. This was on the same track, same temp, same humidity, same elevation. So the question is...does $2500 worth of mods only offset the powertrain losses of the AT vs the 6MT? Because if this was true and the engines of the 04s and 05 are completely even, there is one hell of percentage of powertrain loss! Not to mention that my car weighs almost 100lbs. more.
So the argument that I see here is modded 04 AT versus stock 05 6MT = even because of transmission difference. A person with an '04 AT needs mods to run even with an 05 6MT...and this is strictly due to powertrain loss....hmmm. And this post was started because of a butt dyno review. Someone starts throwing around real world numbers and of course, they are instantly cast off as heresy. What year was your G again? If the '06 comes out and is faster than my '05, I'll be the first to admit it. But never on butt dyno...once I get back from the track.
I refer back to the original line in this post....
Originally Posted by G35Alex
Now what does that prove in comparison to what I have said? Nothing. If that's the case (correction factors being "WRONG" in either direction), every dyno ever done may as well be thrown out the window. The POINT IS, many people have used the same correction factor, some higher, some lower, but AGAIN, it falls within what people would consider an acceptable range of power output.
Originally Posted by G35Alex
Its too bad that the AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ranged from (estimate) between 40-80 degrees, depends on where you were at the shop (near the door versus by the workers on cars)....
40 degrees ambient would be a 0.985 CF
Take the difference of the two and you get 60 degrees with a 1.001 which oddly is the recorded weather conditions for the day
Originally Posted by G35Alex
At 40 degrees that day (again, we are talking assumptions), the factor could've been .9706865. At 80 degrees that day, the factor could've been 1.117746. Now, you were saying?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
From: North Phoenix
This is how I've been shown.
Take 990, divide by pressure of dry air.
Take the temp, add + 273, then divide by 298.
Multiply both times .95
Multiply this by 1.18 then subtract .18.
This is how I've seen it done numerous times. Are you saying this is wrong?
Take 990, divide by pressure of dry air.
Take the temp, add + 273, then divide by 298.
Multiply both times .95
Multiply this by 1.18 then subtract .18.
This is how I've seen it done numerous times. Are you saying this is wrong?
